From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753097AbcFODC4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:02:56 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:33450 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752926AbcFODCy (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:02:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:02:40 +0100 (BST) From: James Simmons To: Greg Kroah-Hartman cc: "Faccini, Bruno" , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "Dilger, Andreas" , "Drokin, Oleg" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lustre Development List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: lustre: lnet: Allocate MEs and small MDs in own kmem_caches In-Reply-To: <20160610163610.GA20291@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <1465512347-11650-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <1465512347-11650-3-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <20160610012833.GA6804@kroah.com> <20160610163610.GA20291@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20160615_040244_227785_D61721A6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.97 ) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.4.0 on casper.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-1.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > This may also possibly help to save cycles due to high usage and > > contention when using a generic kmem_cache (when they stay separate > > from others, thanks for the precision!). > > Have you measured this? > > This isn't applicable for 4.7-rc at this time, _unless_ it fixes a bug, > which is why I pushed back on this. If you want your own cache for > these variables, fine, I don't care, but that makes it a 4.8-rc1 patch > instead. > > hope that helps explain things better, As a side question when is the window to push patches of this class? Is it when 4.7-rc7 is merged to staging?